Yes, if only there hadn't been a debate during a football game and Hillary hadn't known there was going to be a question on water quality in a debate in Flint (!?!?!?!) Bernie would have won.
Amen, comrade. But once the candidate is chosen, EVERYONE has to fall in line this time. Even if the candidate supports the 2nd Amendment, or took pharma money, or is uninspiring, or wants to bomb the shit out of Yemen, or whatever. The right and its allies abroad will undoubtedly funnel support to leftist and Green candidates (again) who will try and sow discontent about the Democratic candidate, no matter who it is, The left and the center left need to unite, even if it's just this one time. Not helpful.
There will be more than one candidate against Trump (only one, the democrat has a chance of beating Trump).
Deval Patrick, also underwhelming on that poll as a recent MA Governor, not surprisingly has since announced that he won't run. He's sort of the first serious politician with any speculation to overtly decline. His base would have probably been most comparable to Gillibrand and Booker, both I'm not convinced will do great in this primary either (especially if they are both in it). Still their best bet is to clear out other "establishment" (or to their detractors, "corporate") Democrats. In this case, Patrick didn't have much voter support of course so doesn't make a difference at all (although it may free up some donors), but in a likely crowded field it will be interesting to see which non-starter candidates decline to run in the primary preseason, as it may have just as big an impact as who does run.
I'm not. Sanders benefitted a ton from being the only realistic alternative to Clinton, kind of like Santorum v. Romney in 2012. I expect Bernie's numbers to continue to slide as other candidates become better known.
"Someone else" with a solid 28%. Other than being a cool guy, has Beto actually accomplished anything?
His potential candidacy is being seen as sort of 2008 Obama redux 1) not very experienced but experienced enough to not seem completely unqualified 2) a penchant for lofty rhetoric 3) Charismatic and photogenic enough that lets a lot people project aspirations onto him I don't doubt he's a decent candidate considering how he did in Texas, but at this point it's not about who he is as much as what people (want to) see in him. That said, I prefer some other potential candidates.
I think this "has XXXX actually accomplish anything"is valid for most of the marquee Democrats that may be running , from Kamala to Amy to Corey. To the exception of Joe and some governors, most of their resume in therm of "accomplishments" may be pretty thin. I am all for Beto running and I am jumping on his bandwagon. I will fine as well with the names mentioned above.
Well, Abraham Lincoln was just a one term congressman who was a good public speaker, and I guess he was OK. I just don't know much about Beto, other than the horse race story of him almost beating the Spawn of Satan. I guess my ideal would be someone who's been around government long enough to understand how it works, but not so long that they have forgotten what the real world is like.
Beto's been in congress for six years. While I think it's fair to say he doesn't have any pieces of signature legislation, I'd also think it's fair to say he's no neophyte.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics/2020-rankings-presidential/index.html Chris Cilizza and Harry Enten updated their top 10 list. My takes in parentheses: 10. Gillibrand (too high) 9. Castro (way too high) 8. Brown (too low) 7. Klobuchar (too low) 6. Sanders (good) 5. Warren (way too high) 4. Booker (maybe a little high) 3. Biden (good for now) 2. O'Rourke (good for now) 1. Harris (good)
-she's bilingual-her name ID is huge nationally-she does great with younger generations-the map looks goodand now, in advance of 2020, insiders confirm she's exploring pic.twitter.com/8sYdqYRH76— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) December 12, 2018
I'm pulling this quote from another thread. Sorry if that's inappropriate. @bigredfutbol You've made lots and lots and lots of noise about how much you despise Bernie. Fine, opinions are for assholes or something like that. Will you commit to voting for the Democratic candidate, no matter who s/he is, as the last, best hope to stop Trump? Even if it's an old Jewish guy from Vermont?
Who the ******** made you the opinion police? This is the Politics & Current Events forum. Bitching and whining that somebody has strong opinions about a major political figure here is just so damn rich.
This is maybe about right for the moment, but I think Sanders is still above Booker; Bernie's definitely on his way down but he has a pretty solid base of support. His ceiling isn't high enough to win, but his floor is higher up than most. He's held on to a solid core of his 2016 support, two and half years on. That makes him a contender no matter what. Castro has an early start; we'll see if that leads to traction. He needed to do that before Beto sucks up all the oxygen in TX. Warren--too high, I agree. I can't see her out-peforming Sanders when push comes to shove. Klobucher could be the dark horse in this race.
I'll take that as a hard "no." So it's only the left that has to compromise. Gotcha. I can't imagine how Donald ********ing Trump got elected.